Will the 2001 Box Office pass 2000?

[Darth23]

Any predictions? Things seem pretty quiet right now. Last year managed to surpass 1999 (barely) but there have been some theaters closing, and some consolidation in the movie chain market. Will this have an effect? Ticket prices aren't dropping they keep pushing higher and higher it seems.

The big movies coming out this year soome to be mostly sequels, remakes, and movies based on video games. Other than [LOTR] at the end of the year, and AI, there don't seem too be many Big Event movies coming out.

Any thoughts?

[Jedi Master Kyle]

It's gonna be close again. (How's that for sitting on the fence? :) )

[JonathanLB]

2001 will annihilate 2000.

So far, it has surpassed last year on almost EVERY single weekend, sometimes by huge margins. It's been a good year so far, though it is quiet lately mostly. I think this summer will be huge, and another good summer, unlike 1999 which sucked the fat one. Buncha crappy movies, but somehow they did provide amazing competition for TPM. That only proves that people have no taste, because 1999's summer slate sucked worse than any summer in the history of the entire world.

2000 ruled, all kinds of great summer movies, and same with 2001. Tomb Raider, Mummy 2 even looks good, Final Fantasy the movie, Pearl Harbor, there are tons of others, like Swordwish with Travolta, and Windtalker or something by John Woo, and then you have A.I. by Spielberg, then Planet of the Apes by Tim Burton. This summer just looks great I think.

[Darth Turbogeek]

Tomb Raider?!?! The Mummy 2?!?!? FINAL FANSTASY?!?!!? Oh come on, warmed over baby spew at best. Tomb Raider will tank - as a game it was a POS and as a movie it will be worse. The only reason why anyone bothered with it was the tits on the box. Lets face it, the girl playing Lara Croft needs a set of airbags bigger than a zepplin to match the digital Lara.

Blech.

AI on the otherhand.... hmmm. Might be worth a peek

[Darth23]

I'm holding out hope for Shrek.

Then again, I'm holding out hope for Spy Kids! also.

:)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have to agree with Jonathan, 2001 is easily going to make more money. First someone mentioned there was no huge movie that is wrong because there is one this year, Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor is going to be huge I am sure it will make 250 easily maybe even 300. It has a great cast, Ben Afflec, Cuba Gooding Jr, Alec Baldwin, Dan Ackroyd, and Jon Voight. It is the perfect war story that most Americans I am sure will see especially those feeling nostalistic for the past. It also got a love story in it which will help to drive up attendance. Pearl Harbor is no the only film that will make money this summer. Disney is coming out with Atlantis the Lost Empire which looks pretty good from what I have seen of it. Universial is making another trip to Jurassic Park which will make money regardless of how good it is. Then there is the two video game movies, one will probably bomb and one will probably do pretty good buisness. The Mummy 2 will probably do similiar buisness to the first one. I am sure I have missed a few films, I haven't seen the entire list of films coming out this summer.

[JonathanLB]

Oh yeah, duh, I forgot about JP3, that should clear $200 million without a single problem.

People love JP, even if the 2nd one was not received that well, $229 million...isn't bad!

Blade 2 comes out this summer, and that'll rule too. I think this summer will rock, and Tomb Raider will do VERY well, it won't bomb, lol. Don't even kid yourself, Angelina Jolie on screen in that outfit for 2 hours would make $50 million without a plot even, just with her. Tomb Raider is an easy $125 million, but probably more.

Final Fantasy is one of the greatest game series (I believe the greatest) of all-time, and every one of them has been based on the awesome plots, so yes most people cannot wait until the movie. It will be absolutely awesome, don't mock FF man, that's not cool. Tomb Raider, ok, but not FF.

[Darth23]

I HATE HATE HATE JP.

The first one - the one I actually saw in the theaters.

Grrrr.

I think the people were clueless when the first one came out, but caught on for number 2.

I hope jp3 doesn't make it to 40 million.

>:^D

[JonathanLB]

What do you mean? The first one was a masterpiece, and the 3rd highest grossing movie ever worldwide.

The book is also fantastic, and the themes are universal and important. Crichton is a great writer, and JP is one of his best books. The movie translated very well, as most Crichton books do.

JP3 should be awesome, I can't wait, I just hope it's a bit better than the 2nd, which was good I thought, but nothing more than an action flick that became extremely outlandish at the end especially.

[Darth Turbogeek]

JP was okay. Nowhere near the quality of the book, which rocked. JP2 was awful

Not holding out much hope

[jjwr]

I really enjoyed JP2...the end was a bit of stretch but it was a lot of fun....nothing like seeing a bix T-Rex stomping through a city and eating neighborhood dogs :)

I wasn't sure what was coming out this year but seeing the movies listed in there I think it should top last year. I think you'll get at least 3(most likely more) movies at $175M+(Pearl Harbor, LOTR, JP3).

Tomb Raider and FF.....I think Tomb Raider will pull between $120-$140 million total, the game is so well known, Jolie is a good actress and people wanna see Croft on the big screen.

FF....I think it'll be lucky to pull 75 Million(course I could be way off, will have to see more info about the movie). The games are good but I don't even think they're as big as Tomb Raider. Yeah they're huge but they're also a very indepth game that takes a lot of time to get anywhere. With Tomb Raider you've got a huge PC following, its big on the playstation, they're are some very popular comics for it, I think it'll do much better than FF. Back to FF...I loved the first 3, 7 was ok and after that it was just the same old same old. The plot got very old, angst ridden main character, world on his shoulders, something is going to destory the world...etc...etc...etc. I think the plots have gotten very stagnent. Course thats the same for most indepth RPG type games, even the Zelda are similar, though he's not angst ridden, he's a pretty chipper fellow.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I loved Jurassic Park it is one of my favorite movies. Sure the book is better but I think with most movies based on books the book is better. (I think there are exceptions Gone with the Wind, widely considered to be a bad book and also the most recent Hannible where some feel the movie is better). The Lost world on the other hand, is a weaker movie. I enjoyed but not as much as Jurassic Park, book was way better and the movie destroyed hardly any of the book shows up in the film and the ending was terrible. I think they just rushed that movie out knowing it would make money. I am hopefull for the sequel Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant I read somewhere that he is hired by a millionaire played by William Macy to rescue his family who crashed on one of the islands (not sure which one) hopefully they will keep it on the island and that would make it much more interesting. Also in the cast are Michael Jeter, Tea Leoni, and Laura Dern makes a cameo. I think it will make money mostly because of the dinosaur theme Spielberg is not directing though which might actually be good I don't think he wanted to do the last one. Joe Johnston is directing he is most famous for directing Honey I shrunk the kids and Jumanji. The first one is a good movie the latter is just a special effect film. On a side note Johnston was one of the big special effect designers for the Star Wars Trilogy I have read he created the A-T-Ts and was partly responsible for the incredible Battle of Hoth. I think it will easily make 125 could make 200 if it's any good.

[Doc Milo]

I actually thought the movie "The Lost World" was better than the book -- and that is rare for me to believe, as well as rare on the whole.

I had a lot of problems with the book that the movie actually solved.

For one, Ian Malcolm, in the book, returns to the Lost World with the idea in mind that he can observe dinosaurs in their native habitat.

That is a 180 degree departure from Ian Malcolm's character! There is no way that anyone who believes in chaos theory (as Malcolm did in JP) would believe that you can observe anything in its native habitat without the observer's very presence disturbing that habitat. (That's the entire idea that many unknown variables make everything unpredictable. The observer's presence becomes one of those variables.)

At least in the movie, he went to the Lost World Island to "save his girlfriend." Cliche reason, to be sure, but more in line with his character.

There were just too many little things out of whack with the book -- too many little things inconsistant with the original Jurassic Park -- for it to work well with me. Taken as a separate entity, without the original having established characterization, yes, it was a fun read, and a quick read -- but in context with what the original established, it just failed, IMO.

The things that were left out of the movie made the movie much better than the book was. Although I did have a problem with the T-Rex on the mainland plotline.

And the original Jurassic Park, while a good movie, was no where near the quality of the book. But I believe time constraints for the movie was one reason for this. If they had time to include the book's ending, it would have been much better.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I guess my biggest problem was the ending I thought the ending in the book was so much better, also besides Malcom and Harding were there any other characters from the book that made it into the film, its been a while since I read it. I know they added Malcom's daughter and cutout two other children but I was sure about the other characters. I do rememeber that the principle villain in the book was Dotson who was the a genecitist who wanted to steal the dinosaurs to create another Jurassic Park. To me that made more since because there is no way IGen could have survived after the first book and even if it did I doubt its investors would be stupid enough to try to build another one. Also I have to read the book again I didn't think Malcom went to the island for that reason I thought he went after some billionarie kid who wanted to go to island to observe the dinosaurs but I could be wrong its been a while since I read it.

[Jedieb]

Didn't Malcolm die in the JP novelization? It's been years since I've read it, but I do recall both he and Hammond die in the novelization. There are a couple of glaring inconsistencies. ;) I never read the second novel, how did it reconcile their deaths?

[Jedi Master Carr]

According to the Lost World Malcolm didn't die at all he said it was a misunderstanding. We never saw him die in Jurassic Park it was just told by another character. Hammond did die in Jurassic Park and made no return in the book sequel even though he showed up in the film.

[Jedieb]

That's some misunderstanding!
"Malcom's dead, zip him up."
"Are you sure he's dead? It looks like he's still breathing."
"Damnmit I said he's dead! Do I look like an idi.. Oh you're right, I better give him his watch back."

[JonathanLB]

hahaha!

No my understanding was that the Lost World book was a sequel to the JP MOVIE, and not to the book, that's what everyone told me anyways...

Well, I thought JP was a great movie, I enjoyed the book a lot, but I usually prefer movies to books. The books always have more details, so they're more involved from that perspective, but books cost little to make, and the energy involved, while great, can be done by one person. For that reason, I'm just more impressed when I can see everything on screen and not have to imagine it all. Yeah yeah the imagination is great, but would you rather have a girl described naked, or a picture of her naked? Thanks I'll take the picture, haha.

Ok that's a sick analogy, but it works.

Anyway, JP3 may suck, it may rule, but I'll definitely be there opening day and let's hope it rules. The director, as previously mentioned, did have a major role on the SW films.

[Doc Milo]

Also I have to read the book again I didn't think Malcom went to the island for that reason I thought he went after some billionarie kid who wanted to go to island to observe the dinosaurs

Yeah. The billionaire kid convinces him that it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to observe dinosaurs in their native habitat.

Malcolm should have set the kid straight -- that would have been consistant with his character -- that once an observer steps foot in a habitat, they are no longer viewing the animal in its habitat. The habitat becomes tainted by the observer. That's what Malcolm believed all during the first novel.

I don't remember in the JP novel if it was clear that Ian Malcolm died or not. It's been a while since I read it.

JP the movie was great, but it could have been ten times greater if it included the ending from the novel -- how they outsmart the velociraptors instead of having T-Rex save the day, and how the small compys end up lunching on Hammond! (That's one thing I was disappointed in the translation from book to movie in JP -- I wanted to see the compys. But they aren't in the film at all!)

Another thing that disappointed me in the Lost World -- both the novel and the movie, but mainly the novel -- was that the JP novel ended with the compys on the mainland eating all the lycine rich plants to survive. And that is just dropped in the sequel.

If the book was written as a sequel to the movie (and it does seem that way) then it's understandable because the compys are not in the movie. Just seems to me the book would have been better had he written it as a sequel to the original novel, then let them make the Lost World film as a sequel to the movie. Keep each format separate. Movie sequel for movie. Novel sequel for novel.

(Edited in later)

Just to keep this to the original topic. I think JP3 will do well in the box office. And with LOTR and the other movies mentioned coming out (I'm eager to see how Final Fantasy is on the big screen too -- from the trailer I've seen, the animation looks incredible!) I think 2001 should have no problem surpassing 2000. (In 2000, I actually saw Zero movies on the big screen. There just weren't many that caught my attention, and the ones that did, I waited for the DVD. In fact, the last movie I saw on the big screen was TPM! -- in 1999, I saw only three movies on the big screen: The Matrix, TPM, and The Sixth Sense.) Now, with the DVD surround sound set-up I have, I find that something has to really catch my attention for me to see it in the movies. I, for one, will definitely go to see LOTR when it comes out. And I'll most probably go to see FF and JP3.

[Jedi Master Carr]

FF does look intreguing it weird that the whole film is computer animated which has to be a first. I will most likely see JP3 and hope its better than the Lost World. The movie I am really waiting for is Pearl Harbor the trailer looks incredible, I am curious how they will show the battle. I am also curious if it will be gory like Private Rayan, personally I think it won't mostly because Disney is involved in it and they probably want a PG-13 rating so it will make more money. The only thing that worries me about it is that the makers of Armagendon are involved in it. Not that Amragendon was terrible but the plots had loads of problems. Luckily the writer of Braveheart, Russel Wallace wrote the screenplay so the story will probably be better than Armagendon. I still think that Pearl Harbor will dominate this summer probably making at least 250 might even get 300 million leading the pack of what will probably be a very good summer.

[JonathanLB]

The Pearl Harbor trailer is one of the best that I've ever seen, I felt it was moving, and it just drew me in, it said "YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!" Few trailers do that. Most of them, since I'm a major moviegoer, just say, "This is good enough you probably will see it anyway," but they aren't that great from a marketing perspective. 3 out of 4 trailers, maybe 4 out of 5, just don't excite me that much. I probably say, "looks pretty good" after 50% of the trailers I see, but that doesn't mean anything, because they really want me to be saying, "I will see (so and so). I must see (so and so)." That is what good marketing accomplishes, and trailers that did that for me were ones like The Matrix, the two TPM trailers (!), Blade (hehe), The 6th Day, Pearl Harbor, etc.

Then there are trailers like Fight Club's. That trailer is THE WORST I HAVE EVER SEEN. It makes the movie look utterly stupid and probably like the biggest waste of film ever. But I loved the movie and gave it FOUR stars! One of my favorite films of 1999, and what I'd consider masterfully directed and brilliant, really. Fox is notoriously bad at selling many of their best movies (i.e. L.A. Confidential, crappy box office gross, masterpiece of a movie!).

Armageddon sucked hard, I don't know why I liked it when I saw it in theaters, I must have been sick or something. When I saw it on video (the second time overall), I thought it was the corniest piece of tripe I'd ever seen. It was painful. I probably would have given it 3.5 stars in theaters, then when I saw it at home it was more like 1.5.

Liv Tyler is hot, though. ;)

I don't care who makes a movie, I care how good it is. Take The Patriot, that movie was made by the guys who brought us some really plotless blockbusters, but still, it was a great movie I thought, and the same can be true with Pearl Harbor. I just cannot wait to see it and find out.

[Darth23]

Armageddon wasn't HORRIBLE, of coursem whenever I see it I'm not sure if I'm laughing WITH it or AT it.

Bur I'd have to say that I hated JP more. :p

I thought it was technicly well done, but I just didn't care at all about any of the characters. Plus I thought the old man should have gotten eaten by the T-Rex instead of there Raptors.

I just thought it was very manipulative - in a bad way. Kind of like a lot of Temple of Doom was. The roller coaster mineshaft scene in TOD is what really when I started questioning Speilberg at times, and a lot of JP reminded me of that. It's like hit this button and the audience WILL react that way.

[JonathanLB]

Nah, I disagree. Temple of Doom was awesome, I think it's the best Indiana Jones movie.

Fans always rave about Raiders, well that one was definitely the worst of the three. I still love all of the Indiana Jones movies, but Raiders is not the best, it's just not as good as the other two films.

[Darth23]

Raiders is better. Last Crusade is close behind.

Temple of Doom relieve too much on on Hollywood cliches and monkey brains.

It was like Speilberg didn't have time to give us real thrills, so he decided to gross us out instead.

[jjwr]

I thought Last Crusade was easily the best, so much world hopping and different locations it really set the scene of a grand adventure. Temple was cool but I think i'd agree with Darth about it, lots of gross out type scenes in there. Though I've always enjoyed the crocodile feast at the end.

[Darth23]

I just think that a lot of movie makers should be made to write 1000 times on a blackboard:


"Gross does not equal scary. Gross does not equal scary. "

:p